Summary
holding when there is no set time to file a motion to reopen, the movant must act with reasonable diligence and the motion should be filed without unnecessary delay
Summary of this case from Shoppes of Mount Pleasant, LLC v. J.M.L., Inc.Opinion
No. 392, 2011
01-23-2012
AUGUSTUS H. EVANS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SGT. THOMAS LEE, Defendant-Appellee.
Court—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 07C-03-009
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 23rd day of January 2012, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
The appellee chose not to file an answering brief. The parties, therefore, were informed that the matter would be decided on the basis of the opening brief and the record below.
(1) The appellant, Augustus Evans, filed this appeal from a Superior Court decision, dated July 14, 2011, denying his motion to reopen a 2009 judgment, which entered summary judgment against Evans in his wrongful death suit. We find no merit to Evans' appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Evans filed a civil complaint in 2007 seeking damages as a result of his father's death. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the appellee, who was a municipal employee, on the grounds that the appellee's conduct was not outside the scope of his employment and was not wanton, willful or malicious. This Court affirmed that ruling on appeal. More than a year after the appeal, Evans filed a document entitled "Rule 60(): Relief from Judgment Motion," which sought relief from the 2009 judgment against him on the grounds that the Superior Court's dismissal of his complaint was "(1) wrong; (2) incomplete; and (3) rendered by an impartial [sic] tribunal." Although titled as a motion for relief from judgment, Evans' motion, in fact, was an attempt to reargue the merits of his complaint. The Superior Court denied the motion, stating in part, "Your dissatisfaction with the decision and beliefs of discrimination do not warrant revisiting the decisions made long ago." Evans now appeals.
Evans v. Lee, 2010 WL 2179803 (Del. June 1, 2010).
(3) In his opening brief, Evans contends that the Superior Court's reference to "decisions made long ago" implies that the Superior Court denied his motion to reopen on the ground that it was untimely. Evans argues that, because Rule 60 does not contain a time limitation, the Superior Court's decision must be reversed. We disagree.
(4) Although there is no set time limit in which a party must file a Rule 60(b) motion, it is well-settled law that a movant must exercise reasonable diligence and act without unnecessary delay in filing a motion to reopen. In this case, however, it is clear to this Court that the Superior Court did not deny Evans' motion because it was "untimely" under Rule 60(b). The Superior Court denied Evans' motion because he was seeking to reargue the same issues that had been rejected by the trial court in 2009 and by this Court on appeal in 2010. Evans established no basis for reopening the judgment, and we find no abuse of the Superior Court's discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
Shipley v. New Castle County, 975 A.2d 764, 770 (Del. 2009).
See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 595 A.2d 385, 389 (Del. 1991).
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice